This is the city: Los Angeles, California. I work here. I'm an ex-mayor. Los Angeles is a magnet for people from all over the world. Some of them run for public office. Inevitably some of them stray from the golden rule and rule for those that have the gold. That's when I go to work. My name is Yorty. I'm a dead pol.

Those are good points, however, its not reason enough for Walter to not debate. Walter has been featured on nearly every major local talkradio outlet as well as picking up local press mentions. He does present an alternative viewpoint (no matter what you think of it) that should be heard - at the very least - for its entertainment value.

The Republican Party has made sweetheart deals that include not supporting their own. This is why they don't support their own candidates in Democratic leaning districts. And come on - if you aren't the mayor, a former police chief or don't have a million dollars, name ID doesn't just fall from heaven.

Apparently, KNBC and the League of Women Voters are pointing fingers back at each other as to who decides if Walter gets to debate. Lets continue to beat the drum and get him in the show.

As well, we continue to challenge each of the "Flat Five" (I like that one) to see who will be the first to call for Walter's inclusion. What are they afraid of?

Remember - You can email KNBC and League President Jane Goichman urging them to let Walter debate. Also, we encourage you to call talkradio hosts such as Al Rantel, John and Ken, Doug McIntyre, Bill Handel, etc. to make the case on their show for Walter to be included.

So tell me, what significant difference is one more choice for Mayor going to make? By all means, throw another bad apple in the barrel with the rest of them.

Am I being too negative or realistic?

On a positive note, Mr. Moore might pre-occuppy himself with important things like stopping death row in animal shelters and busing public school kids to private schools. Sounds simple and harmless. He sure doesn't make like the savvy skid-greaser pay-to-play backroom-dealing bureaucrat we're used to, does he?

Uh, why does it even matter if Moore's a republican? This is a non-partisan race. You aren't allowed to identify yourself by party on your ballot designation. What should matter are his positions on the issues... which are ridiculous... judging by his being left out of the debate, I think KNBC would agree...

Are you supporting Moore to assure a Hahn victory through divided votes?

"Traditionally, the majority of L.A.'s electorate stays at home on election days when only local races are on the ballot. Four years ago, when Mayor James Hahn won the day, only 36 percent of those eligible to vote made the effort.

And that's just great as far as the special interests are concerned.

From their point of view, the lower the turnout, the better. A small voting base can be easily targeted with deceitful mailers and phone-bank calls. Public-employee unions can significantly affect the election simply by getting their members out to the polls." (http://www.dailynews.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,200%257E20951%257E2548229,00.html)

The author suggests maximizing turnout to change the outcome of the election. "Community groups need to get working, and fast. With less than four months to go, time's running out."

The point is not if Walter is a whack job (he may very well be) or if he has no chance to win (not likely but hell never say never) but that he has merited enough attention to simply be included. He's not Hahn or Hertzberg or Bitter Bernie, but then again he's also not the singing-dancing candidate nor Melrose Larry Green.

In the same vein that Al Sharpton, Pat Buchanan, et al have been allowed to participate in debates - particularly early debates - Walter should be included.

For Christ's sake, we live in a democracy! At least that's what we claim. When we begin to exclude people based on their name id or their relative proximity to mainstream ideology, we forfeit our claim to democracy. It seems that more people are concerned about being a connected insider than they're concerned with upholding this system that's supposed to promote free thought and ideas.

I don't know Moore. I've never heard Moore speak. But I know that if he's shut out of the dialog by outside interests, neither I nor others will be able to decide on his validity on our own. In an environment where nearly all agree that the influence (that is, $$$) of special interests is too great, this is all the more reason to open the dialog to outside views who are not indebted to special interests.

Like a previous blogger, I do find an irony in a candidate facing allegations of numerous illegalities, including practices of "pay-to-play", able to participate in a debate and another candidate being barred because his name id isn't "high enough" or his ideas are too "whacked out". It's almost as if we'd prefer a system that promotes the elements we hate most about it.